UC Berkeley-Novartis partnership sparks controversy

By Caroline Woon

Daily Bruin Contributor

The rapidly developing field of genetic engineering has raised
many concerns regarding its consequences for the environment as
well as for academic research.

To examine the potentially adverse impact of genetically
engineered species of plants and fish on the natural environment,
the state senate held a hearing last week.

Also under investigation was a multi-million dollar agreement
between Novartis, a biotechnology company, and the Plant and
Microbial Biology Department at UC Berkeley.

Defenders of the partnership say their research is not
compromised by the agreement, and others point out that genetically
engineered foods could benefit everyone.

Under the terms of the agreement at Berkeley, Novartis will
provide $25 million in research funding to the department over the
course of five years and could, theoretically, begin playing a very
active role in determining how that money is spent.

“Novartis will hold two of the five seats on the research
committee, which decides who gets funding and who
doesn’t,” said Guillermo Mayer, legislative director
for state Sen. Tom Hayden, D-Los Angeles.

“Now let’s say someone wanted to question one of
their genetically-engineered products. It’s highly unlikely
that they would decide to support a research project that would run
contrary to their economic interests,” he added.

Last spring, a similar agreement was reached between the
University of California and Ceres, another agricultural
biotechnology company, whereby $5.75 million would be provided to
the UC to fund plant molecular biology research at the newly
established Seed Institute. This agreement also led to the creation
of a Plant Genomics Technology Center at UCLA.

Hayden, chair of the Senate Natural Resources Committee, which
called the hearing, is primarily concerned with what partnerships
between universities and private corporations could mean for the
quality of independent research.

“Public universities are traditionally where independent
risk-assessment research takes place,” Mayer said. “But
now it’s an issue of whether the university can provide
research for the public good.”

Although the Novartis-Berkeley agreement has been met with
considerable protest from students and faculty at Berkeley, some
feel the opposition is largely unnecessary.

“Most of us have a long-term commitment to an area of
basic research,” said Renee Sung, professor of Plant and
Microbial Biology at Berkeley. “We do not and cannot easily
switch projects to suit company needs within a couple of years. The
public concern over this issue is not without merit, but it is
truly exaggerated.”

The possible threat that genetic engineering poses to
California’s natural environment has also generated a
significant amount of controversy.

“The key question here is whether it is safe,” said
Kate Neiswender, Hayden’s environmental consultant.
“Certain GE crops have pesticides inserted into their gene
sequence. Should humans really be ingesting these organisms that
have been genetically-altered?”

According to Neiswender, the toxins produced by
genetically-engineered corn, which is now being grown in the
Midwest, have spread to other plants due to pollen drift, killing a
large portion of the already shrinking monarch butterfly
population.

Neiswender added that the proliferation of
genetically-engineered salmon, bred to grow twice as large and four
times as fast, could also lead to the gradual extinction of the
natural population.

Nevertheless, some believe that the environment could benefit
immensely from advancements in genetic engineering research and
technology.

“We are already able to design plants containing better
nutrients for human consumption, plants that are
insect-resistant,” said Robert Goldberg, UCLA professor of
cell, molecular, and developmental biology, and co-director of the
Seed Institute.

“This will change the economics of agriculture. And these
changes will greatly benefit mankind and the environment,” he
continued.